File talk:Languages of Central Europe 1910.png

Schöne Karte, aber: Wo zum Henker ist denn Sylt auf der Karte? Außerdem ist die frühere deutsch-dänische Grenze eklatant falsch. Ribe war niemals deutsch, schon gar nicht 1910. Außerdem ist Luxemburg nicht eingezeichnet. --Florian Blaschke 20:55, 21. Mai 2009 (CEST)

This map is wrong: Luxembourg and the border between Germany and Belgium are missing. The language border along the border between Germany and the Netherlands and the border between Germany and Denmark are incorrect, too. -- PhJ . 14:19, 11. Jun. 2009 (CEST)

Luxembourg is still missing, the northeast of the Netherlands didn't speak Holland-Brabants. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg is there, open your eyes. Hollands-Brabants isn't a linguistic classification. The North Eastern Netherlands, speak Low Saxon dialects. However these dialects, Dutch Low Saxon for a reason, have; from about the 12th century been focused on the Low Frankish (i.e Dutch) language area and have adopted Dutch linguistic innovations and vocabulary to such a degree that they differ greatly from other Low Saxon dialects, to which they should (in theory) be more related/intelligible, but (in reality) are not. Though this is present linguistic consensus, a practical example of this would be the failing of the 'Low German Wikipedia' project, which was meant for all Low Saxon speakers; but proved unworkable because of the huge differences between Dutch Low Saxon and Low Saxon dialects of Germany. The incorporation of this region to the Dutch language area, is hence totally justified.HP1740-B (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem continues to be the claim that "a majority (i.e 51% or more) of speakers" existed all over Europe. That's not true, just like there isn't "majority of religion" everywhere. And for mostly the same reasons, religion and language are used as excuses to plunder others (and both will "split" if that excuse is exhausted).

About Luxembourg: it is there, but you didn't show its borders. Arlon is shown as speaking German (as far as I know that's correct), but as part of Luxembourg, not Belgium. That's often the problem with maps drawn by extremists, they want to show their POV (in your case, Dutch isn't a West Germanic language, but has always been spoken within the borders of Bourgundian Netherlands as of 1548), but they forget to adapt other parts of the map.

About Hollandish vs. other West Germanic dialects: it is quite easy to understand other dialects (both hearing and reading), but it is harder to use the same spelling. I can easily read the Low German wikipedia (duh, it is written in my language), but I can not write for it (it's even hard to write for nds-nl.wikipedia.org). The difference with Hollandish is quite big (Hollanders often claim they can't understand Plat, but ignorance seems to be their pride), though centralized education means that the lexical difference is almost eliminated. I was born 50 years after the alleged date of the map, yet I understand the dialects in say Osnabruck or Hamburg, better than the dialects in say Amsterdam or Rotterdam. However that could well be the result of the already mentioned pride of ignorance, I learned English in school, but in Great Britain I spoke most easily in Scotland.

That "from about the 12th century" is quite untrue. Even in the 15th century, nl:Desiderius Erasmus#Opleiding went to Deventer for education. During the en:Guelderian Wars (1502-1543) the area was conquered by and with the nl:Transactie van Augsburg (1548) formally transferred to the en:Burgundian Circle, but that's 400 years after the date you claim. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for your personal experiences. They are irrelevant. As for the dates I mentioned, they represent cultural orientation; not political affiliation.HP1740-B (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't falsify maps and you do. You don't even know what orientation means, do you? (Hint: it isn't looking West). Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't use words I don't know the meaning of. Hint: go to a library, and go find a book on the Flemish Cloth cities and the Hanseatic league, specifically on the Dutch circle. You'll find that all the towns in the east of the Netherlands, together with East Frisia, belonged to the Dutch/Zuyderzee Hansa circle, which was primarily aimed Bruges and Antwerp. Also, go to the linguistic section and find the "Handboek Nedersaksische taal- en letterkunde" you'll find all the Dutch innovations in Dutch Low Saxon explained in great detail. If you have anything substantial to contribute in the future ... I'm looking forward to reading it.HP1740-B (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You use words like "orientation", "Flemish" and "Dutch". QED. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes? So?HP1740-B (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All of them are words you don't understand . Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?HP1740-B (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

another bad map by User:HP1740-B

see this other bad map by User:HP1740-B: File:German language in 1910.png and its talk page. -- PhJ (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues with reliablity, especially for Germans and Poles

There are many problems with the map. Granted, one could be going by 'official' census data, however that is unreliable. As of 1910, officially there were around 3,500,000 Poles in Germany, however the Polish population of Silesia, West Prussia, Posen and East Prussia were all under counted, being listed as 'German' whenever possible. Cross-referencing data with German Wiki shows that there were around 88,000 Poles listed as Germans in West Prussia and Posen combined. Falsification about the ethnic makeup of Silesia, more importantly the Oppeln district show that there were around 236,000 Poles and mixed German/Polish inhabitants who spoke Polish (the so-called Silesians) listed as Germans. There were further reductions in the number of Ruhr Poles, officially being around 160,000, in reality being 450,000-500,000, thus bringing the actual Polish population in Germany to 4,300,000 as opposed to the 'official' 3,500,000. Similar work shows that there were an additional 1,000,000 Poles outside of Congress Poland and the Baltics in Russia in 1897.

Another issue is the distribution of Poles in the East. Your map shows them as a very small minority in the Chelm region and does not show them in the Wilno region or in northeastern Galicia. The German census taken during WWI shows that the Wilno region was in excess of 50% Polish, yet it is shown as Belorussian and Lithuanian. At the same time, most of the maps I've come across show the Chelm region as slightly higher than half Polish. Granted, the Poles listed themselves as different nationalities to escape Russian persecution, however that doesn't change their numbers. There, at least in interwar times taking falsifications into consideration, was a band of Poles (approx 40%) and Jews (10%), combined making up half of the population of the northern portion Eastern Galica stretching from the Curzon Line, north of the Dnister river (south of the Dnister being 70% Ukrainian) and ending at the Zbruch river, none of whom are shown, save an extremely tiny 'island' near Lwow. I have seen some maps showing that entire region as striped Polish/Ukrainian, save the 'island' of Lwow as Polish. No Polish 'islands' in Volhynia are shown either. The population of the Orava-Spis region on the map is shown as 'Czechoslovak,' despite evidence that the majority of it was Polish.

Galicia 1911 map: http://www.geocities.com/ejmarkow/pole_uke_map.jpg Austria-Hungary 1914 map: http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/800/868/868.htm

Then there is the issue of the 'Czechoslovak' population, something invented, as the original language split centuries ago, just as German and Dutch did, Ukrainian and Belorussian, Serbian and Bulgarian and so fourth.

With regard to Germany, there seem to be few Germans located in the vicinity of Kattowitz, Glewitz and Kongshutte, despite their majorities there. Furthermore, your map shows the Hlutschin Land as Polish, yet the majority of the inhabitants were German-Sympathizing Czech (40,000 out of 48,000, the rest being German). The German population of West Prussia and Posen is over-stated, as Posen was 63.5% Polish in 1910, while West Prussia was 38.2%. Also, the Lithuanian population of Memelland and the adjoining regions is also over-stated. In the west, Luxembourg was not a part of Belgium in 1910, while at the same time, the Germans living in France opposite the border with Luxembourg weren't shown. Also, Schleswig didn't use the river Ribe as it's northern frontier to the North Sea, having dipped south.

Ladin

Ladin in the South Tyrol (Austria-Hungary) is missing in its entirety.

Source

In the spirit of "no original research", the people questioning the map's accuracy are misguided. Such maps can never be "accurate", because they are by design simplitications.

The question to ask is, what is the source of this map. Apparently, this is "Based on a map by Dr. V. Schmidt and Dr. J. Metelka". We need to know, then where Schmidt and Metelka published their map. If we know this, the map is referenced and can be used with proper attribution. As long as we do not know this, this is simply an unreferenced piece and cannot be used encyclopedically. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)